Critical Reasoning in the USA, Teaching Thereof

In My Humble Opinion
21

Practical problems in real world implementation are that information that goes against our extant beliefs, including ones that are based on past limited exposure and religious or political beliefs, is handled as “extraordinary” and as “inconsistent”, and that many mainstream sources are now presumed by many across the beliefs spectrum as not “credible” sources. IOW: confirmation bias coupled with lack of trust in previously trusted institutions.

Thinking back on my education I don’t think I was taught much critical thinking by educators until college. My dad drilled it into me just watching television together but teachers? Nah. Okay I’ll grant proofs in Geometry class, but that was it. And a couple of teachers didn’t teach it per se but at least encouraged it. (I owe much of love of science to an early science teacher who did not shoot down my question to the statement that heat is invisible with asking “Then what am I seeing with the waviness over pavement on a hot day then?” He actually got back with the answer the next day!) Others though handled critical thinking questions as our being smart asses.

And in college it was not in any classes, which emphasized facts memorization/regurgitation and some skills, in communication, and in solving specific sorts of problems (e.g.organic chem).

Actual critical thinking, generating alternative hypotheses, questioning if the conclusion suggested was justified by the evidence available, and being especially aware of critically evaluating evidence that supported your preferred conclusion, being on guard to your biases, trying to take the position of trying to prove your current beliefs incorrect, those were taught by a professor whose lab I was a volunteer scut monkey in. Not in a class.

Let’s be real. This board has a selection bias to those who value critical analysis and often critical thinking here is not so impressive.

And a person who considers a meteorologist discussing climate change as worthy of being threatened? They consider human induced climate change as an extraordinary claim, consider “lamestream media” and elite intellectuals as not credible (and consider their particular social media feeds and family/associate statement as more credible); and hear their own beliefs widespread and consistently within their own circles.

They are actually using those four metrics.

22

California public universities required a critical thinking class. Where I was it was offered in philosophy and psychology options, I think most people opted for the former for some reason but it seemed like the latter was more interesting. They covered logical fallacies and things like that, politically neutral from what I can remember, I enjoyed it.

23

Which was, in some ways, more impressive than if he had answered you right then and there. Because he didn’t know the answer… and his response to not knowing the answer was to find out. Thus modeling what all of you should also do when you don’t know the answer to something.

24

I’m not sure that I’m the best-informed or connected person to cast about for conservative thought leaders, but I’d probably start by looking at National Review journalist types who have longstanding right-wing credentials, to high profile semi-retired Republicans like Colin Powell or Condi Rice. Maybe former Republican Governer Arnold Schwarzenegger? Honestly, I’d defer to the whoever conservative Dopers would suggest.

The great thing is that whatever your politics are, most everyone likes to think we think critically, regardless of how well we actually do it. It’s kinda like how we are all the hero of our own story. So it’s a value shared by both parties, despite how they are viewed by uncharitable attitudes from the more cynical on the other side of the aisle. I’d bet all my money that if we were to pop into a conservative leaning group, it wouldn’t be long before we found people looking down their noses at liberals, accusing them of being allergic to critical thinking.

25

I’m not sure that it is a value shared by all parties.

It used to be that an educated person who could think and reason was considered an asset in the world of business. Now, I suspect, most large companies would rather have employees who can execute the directions they are given without question than ones that can think and therefore question the status quo. Critical thinking is good for instigating change, but if your status quo is good, who needs it?

Anymore, I think having a few strong thinkers in the leadership, with ill-educated followers, is a much better path to power than any foolish notions of an egalitarian non-hierarchical America, where each person is free to think for him- or her- or themself.

26

Pretty sure mindless yes people have been the desired for the trenches through middle management and even to large degrees C suite in many companies, and all organizations including political, through history. There is reason that Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals” stands out. It takes confident and skillful leadership to be open to critical questioning of your ideas, and more to be willing to admit when flaws are found. Always has. Delegating authority and allowing autonomy over micromanagement is not a widely possessed skill.

And the other extreme, an organization full of presidents, is nonfunctional.

If it is more prevalent now it is simply because obedience and standardization in execution over autonomy is more normative the larger the organization becomes and larger corporations are increasingly the norm.

27

I don’t think it’s a lack of critical reasoning so much as a lack of appropriate socialization. It really doesn’t bother me too much when people are wrong, or come to an erroneous conclusion. I might roll my eyes or simply shake my head because I think they are wrong, wrong, wrong.

What DOES matter to me is when they act on their beliefs in harmful ways.

28

Colin Powell is no longer semi-retired.

He’s really, really really full time retired now. I never considered him a conservative. I liked the “You break it you bought it” admonition.

29

This is a good point. When people are no longer taught how to think for themselves, then they rely almost exclusively on groupthink. Follow the script. Check the boxes. Nobody wants to take responsibility, nor are they given any, no discretion in decision making, nor any support from higher ups. They will get thrown under the bus when necessary, so don’t take the initiative on anything, much too dangerous.

I used to marvel at some of the absolutely outrageous shit that employees or managers would be subjected to, and the employees and managers that didn’t GAF about anything. They’ve been worked over, beat down their entire life, and don’t know anything different.

Better to be a compliant drone, they don’t pay enough for anyone to GAF.

30

Critical thinking is hard to define!

Some kinds relate to skepticism concerning received wisdom, or being alert to inconsistencies in provided information.

Some of it has to do with disregarding propaganda. I remember being taught a list of types of propaganda, such as name calling, plain folks, and bandwagon.

Another kind of critical thinking requires taking a reasoned POV while still allowing that contrary opinions have some force. If an examination question includes the phrase “to what extent,” it may signal that the instructor is looking for this kind.

I wonder if the phrase “to what extent” is more, or less, frequently used by instructors than it was 25 or 50 or 75 years ago.

31

Teachers teach Critical Thinking every day. It’s just rolled into their lessons.

BLATANT PLUG!!!

If you want to help teach Critical Thinking in this country, get involved with your local high school Speech & Debate league/club/team. They are always desperate for non-parent judges, and there are worse ways to spend a Saturday. Need to make a charitable donation? Contact https://www.speechanddebate.org/.

32

Reasoning is incorporated into many courses, but the best one I took was a senior grade twelve course called Modern History.

Students were asked to read the newspaper or newsmagazines daily and pick interesting articles. The teacher spent maybe a third of the class discussing a few of the stories, the country where it occurred, its recent history in the last century and all its current politics and economics. By the end of the course, one had a decent working understanding of the world and a good background to all the stuff going on at that time.

Another third of the class was discussing modern history since the Enlightment. (A previous course, Ancient History covered earlier stuff). The topics were interesting and very well chosen.

The last third was giving a weighty topic to each of thirty students to do a written summary and a talk, with media, from 45-60 minutes. I did “The Vietnam War”. A fantastic class and brilliant teacher.

33

I’m a 68 year big reader of history books, and the New York Times, and I’m pretty sure I don’t have a decent background to all the stuff going on. It is all too easy to jump to conclusions concerning understanding of countries where I don’t know the language. Just happened to me in another thread where I said there was a failed coup in Russia today, and two other posters politely pointed out that I don’t really know that.

Putting all that aside, how did your long-ago classes relate to critical thinking or reasoning?

In my personal opinion, it is hard to think critically about current events because you are too wrapped up in them. I don’t think high school students can be taught to think critically about, say, going off to fight in a current war — you mentioned Vietnam — where they might be either killed, or regarded as a coward for not participating. The strong emotions are going to lead to jumping to conclusions. Thinking critically, if simplistically, about the causes of World War I, after reading disagreeing primary sources, might be more realistic.

34

Fair question. It relates to reasoning and critical thinking because new events would occur after learning the basic background. Since the course was in 1990 many significant events happened or had recently occurred (say in Eastern Europe and the USSR). One was able to understand their significance by applying this knowledge. Since a lot of the focus was on politics, it made one critically evaluate platforms and media coverage and independently forming one’s own opinions (and ultimately political view) of this was an important part of the course. Exam questions would also give new situations and ask students to critically apply knowledge, not really regurgitate many facts.

Vietnam is a good example. These events occurred a couple decades before the class so most (including myself) knew little about it. Everyone involved had an opinion on it that was reasonable to them and they rarely understood alternate views during the moment. But many critical questions flowed from the conflict - from how America, and still more Canada, should conduct foreign policy, to faith in government and institutions, to the importance of understanding other cultures, to its cultural ramifications, to its effect on colonialism and France and many Asian countries, to humanitarian views, to different flavours of communism, to the role of the modern military.

It is true no emphasis was placed on language but the understanding was at a more basic level not requiring that. For example, Marx’s system of looking at events using thesis/antithesis/synthesis was used. We learned why it appealed to many and why many people opposed it. Who Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were, or the KMT and Mao’s CCP, and the differences between Russia and Chinese communism not really appreciated by the West in 1965, and what Ho Chi Minh hoped to accomplish in Indochina after WW2 and how his wishes were thwarted, and French colonial history in Vietnam, and increasing involvement in the quagmire, and domestic US opinion, etc. - none of which required understanding Vietnamese.

35

Does that old history matter? It influenced (then recent) Reagan and his defence of capitalism and the Cold War, affected the trajectory of Russia and China, had cultural ramifications and led to increasing distrust of government and established institutions, had humanitarian effects, affected policy in Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, changed diplomacy and foreign policy…

This isn’t reasoning like a logic problem - we had fourteen years of math for that. But it is taking real world events - complex with extensive background - and understanding new changes, making an independent opinion, learning to read media critically and synthesizing all that into a bigger picture. That’s a lot of thought.

36

I do agree with a lot of your last two posts. And I think that it was much more practical to use the Vietnam War, as an American classroom topic for critical reasoning, in 1990 than in, say, 1970.

Although your post didn’t quite support this idea, the reason I think it was easier in 1990 was because our participation in their civil war was no longer an American political football. That our participation in the war had been a mistake was hard to deny because, well, we lost. Another big reason was that the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War proved North Vietnam was not an international communism cog, but a natural, if brutal and expansionist, potential U.S. ally, So there were lots of ways to write about the conflict, by 1990, without lining up on a tribal left/right axis.

37

Fair enough. In the seventies one might also not have access to what the North Vietnamese thought about the conflict (nor attach it much weight). Stigma may have affected the military view of things. Politics would have coloured any domestic opinion in the US. Ken Burns series was long after this class but did a great job of showing different views, mostly valid from the differing perspectives of adherents.

Canada is a step away from the United States, but more objective looks at the war took time (such as Karnow’s excellent book published in 1983 which formed the backbone of my research).

38

“Debate” or formally the field of Rhetoric, is the art of persuasion. Something like that. I think critical thinking is a big part of that. It has been said there are only two ways to get someone to do something.

You can try to persuade someone. You know, with words.

Failing that, you have to force him against his will. You know, with force. So leaving the latter out of the equation, leaves a whole lot of ground to be covered. Every single day, most of us have all kinds of people wanting us to do stuff. They are (for example) trying to persuade you to buy their product, or vote for this, or support this cause, or hate those people over there, or whatever.

So having the tools to examine ideas generally is a good thing for the student, whether they are making decisions large or small. A finely tuned Bullshit Detector is important. It has a lot to do with the types of arguments used, the words, everything used to manipulate emotions. Humans are herd animals.

All of the classic scams and unscrupulous and unethical methods of manipulation were pretty much hashed out and described at length centuries ago. In more recent decades especially during the lead up to, during and after world war 1.0 a lot more study and efforts were used by various governments to manipulate public opinion. Some of propaganda is quite clever, it is a science after all and untold billions have been spent on it over the years. It is not as well known as the rocket scientists, but after world war 2.0 under the “paperclip” program great numbers of propaganda specialists were brought over to the US (along with chemical and biological warfare specialists).

What I sensed in school, the instructors were not necessarily interested so much in what my own particular opinion or anybody else’s was on a given issue, but we had to be able to defend it in a logical or coherent manner, using facts, logic, and reason. They might disagree with my conclusions, but that’s OK too. You learn what and why you really believe something, when people are poking holes in specious reasoning. Other times, the instructors would have us argue the other side in a debate - learning to debate formally for a position you do not hold.

Obviously parents nor teachers can’t teach kids everything they need to know, but what they can do is give them the tools to hopefully guide them to make better decisions than they might otherwise. Peer pressure is a powerful force and being able to think critically or objectively insofar as possible is crucial. Classic Logic Fallacies are a good place to start, and once up to speed you’ll see them used by the bullshit artists and usual suspects every goddamned day.

39

FWIW reflecting not on my education but upon my now adult children’s education:

History classes were, in their High School, the set of classes that both honed critical analysis and writing skills.

To my mind Science classes should be the heavy lifter in critical analysis, and English for writing skills, but History it was.

40

I was fortunate to have a lot of good teachers. When one says critical thinking, I certainly think math and science. That’s not wrong. They do teach logic, analysis and critical reasoning, but not a complete form. It’s a useful but limited perspective. Learning foreign languages and studying literature teaches something different about culture and communication. Travel also.

I debated in high school and university, and did well, but would not say it taught me that much. We didn’t have any formal teaching or rhetoric regarding that. But it is an important and undervalued skill.

Because the lessons of history and philosophy are repeated so often, general history has surprisingly taught me the most about reasoning. Though some critics disliked its perceived populism or scope (as a massive and surprising BOMC freebie) the incredibly erudite Will and Ariel Durant’s lifetime study of history (thirteen volumes, until Napoleon) remains one of the best things ever written (IMHO). I’ve read it three times, and I read a lot - including more specific studies of history, and many other things.